…so caddywhompus?
Here's a case I'm currently dealing with. My 3 y/o has severe allergies so we need to start immunotherapy. Our allergist offers an oral therapy option (which would be awesome, because - no shots - and we can do it at home instead of weekly office visits), but it's generally not covered my insurance, even though traditional immunotheraphy injections are covered. Why? Since we do administer the medication at home the doctor's can't bill for an office visit, so it hasn't been widely adopted as an allergy treatment in the U.S. However, it is quite commonly used in European countries where salaries are not tied to billing.
This model has all sorts of implications for how offices are run, how research is conducted and where health services are available.
So yes, you can lower the debt incurred by doctor's, but that isn't going to reduce healthcare costs. It is a structural flaw in the billing system that is the cause of inflated costs. Unless that is fixed, lowering the debt burden will only result in greater take home pay for the physicians.
Seem so what? Caddywhompous?
This is not a real English word, is it?
And pray, who is running this show? The insurance should JUMP at the chance of paying the cheaper option. It’s the doctors who need to pay off their med school debts who must insist on Bulling office visits - the insurance doesn’t profit.
